By far, this is one of my favorite and most recurring questions over the years. And not just in the scope of founders, I’ve asked the same question for a multitude of titles:
Investors
On a similar note, I’ve asked investors: What’s the difference between a great investor and a great board member?
And it yielded some insightful answers.
Leaders
Managers
Executive hire
Marketers
Chefs (both since I was co-hosting a cooking competition in 2019 and 2020, but also for culinary tips to improve my own cooking)
Artists
Software engineers (when you’re hiring folks who are in a field you don’t have a strong competence in)
Auto mechanics (yes, when you drive a 2009 mommy van, it visits the shop more often than you’d like, but also funnily enough, one of the most reliable cars)
Friend versus best friend
Life partner
… just to name a few.
I love this question since its counterpart is often asked: What is the difference between a bad and a good founder? Unfortunately, the “bad vs good” dichotomy usually ends up being a vanity question. You don’t need a trained eye and years of experience for the average person to differentiate between a bad and a good. If you’re reasonably logical, you can tell the difference between a bad and a good in any industry. There are a few exceptions, like art, especially modern or abstract art. But the case holds for most other cases.
On the flip side, to be able to differentiate:
The good – top quartile (25%)
The great – top decile (10%)
And the epic – top percentile (1%)
… becomes increasingly more and more difficult the higher up you’re going. As the power law and the Pareto principle goes, the top 20% accounts for 80% of the results. In other words, the small top-performing minority account for the vast majority of the returns. For instance, the top 20% of VCs account for 80% of the industry’s returns. And the higher you go up in differentiation – from good to great to epic – the smaller the delta in inputs between the tiers. There is a far smaller difference in inputs between the top 1% and the top 2%, compared to the same percentile difference between the 50th and the 49th percentile.
Having said that, to a layperson, the most insightful answer you can get that will save you years of mistakes and failures and industry know-how is the differential between the top performers. As such, usually, I get answers that would have otherwise required a keener eye, much smarter brain, a more resilient body, and a more differentiated path than I have.
For example, here are some answers I’ve learned over the years that differentiate the good from the great:
VP Sales hire. Their ability to hire two rock-star directors from their network within 1-2 months of being hired.
Chef. Their morning routine, starting from how they set their palate in the morning to how they build a robust supply network.
Founder. Their ability to raise their team members’ potential and how close of a pulse they keep to their operating expenses/burn rate.
Manager. How radically candid they can be.
Of course, it’s one thing to know what are the differentiators and another thing to understand the differentiators. The latter requires you to internalize and cut your teeth so that you can understand the true value behind the answers to the above question.
The DGQ series is a series dedicated to my process of question discovery and execution. When curiosity is the why, DGQ is the how. It’s an inside scoop of what goes on in my noggin’. My hope is that it offers some illumination to you, my readers, so you can tackle the world and build relationships with my best tools at your disposal. It also happens to stand for damn good questions, or dumb and garbled questions. I’ll let you decide which it falls under.
Subscribe to more of my shenaniganery. Warning: Not all of it will be worth the subscription. But hey, it’s free. But even if you don’t, you can always come back at your own pace.
I was reading Sammy Abdullah of Blossom Street Ventures‘ Medium post not too long ago about the value of auto-price increases in a context I’ve never really thought about. Quoting one of his portfolio companies’ founders:
“We started including auto-price increases in our renewals at the start of this year and it’s been surprisingly effective. Our starting point is 10% and we get it more often than not; some customers negotiate us down to the 3–5% range.
“The automatic price increases are a beautiful thing because they give us leverage:
we can trade an automatic price increase for an earlier renewal, longer contract period, or upselling to more features; and
when we do waive price increases, the customer walks away satisfied. They feel like they’re winning.”
It’s a great way to win on net retention. But as I’ve written about before, the net retention equation is comprised of the upgrades, downgrades, and churn variables.
Or convert more users into customers, if you’re running a freemium model
Reduce the number of customers downgrading to lower tiers
Reduce churn – customers leaving your platform
Some permutation of the above variables
Leveling up upgrades
Shivani Berry, founder of Ascend’s Leadership Program, once wrote: “Buy-in is the result of showing your team why your idea achieves their goals.” In a similar sense, buy-in is the result of showing your customers why your product achieves their goals. The best thing is that their goals will change over time. As so, your product must contain increasingly more value to your customers as they level up in their lifecycle. As they grow, you have product offerings that grow with their needs.
Take, for example, one of my favorite startups these days, Pulley, a cap table management tool for startups. Don’t worry, this isn’t a sponsored blogpost. Although it’d be nice if it was. I have no chips in the bag; I just like them. They have three tiers of pricing. The lowest for startups with 25 stakeholders. The middle for startups with 40. And the highest is for larger businesses.
Why 25? The average seed-stage startup has about 25 stakeholders. Subsequently, top of mind for them is what SAFEs and convertible notes look like on their cap table and how to structure early equity pools.
As a startup levels up to 40 stakeholders, they’re probably jumping into their first priced round. As such, they’ll need a 409A valuation to appraise their fair market value, as well as finally putting together their first official board.
Every time founders raise another round of funding, the more complicated their cap table becomes. The more they need Pulley’s software. And it so happens, the less price sensitive they become. For Pulley, that means they can charge more as their customers have greater purchasing power.
You also always want an enterprise pricing tier, where pricing is custom. Don’t be afraid to charge more. As I mentioned in a previous essay, when Intercom was only charging IBM $49, an IBM exec once told the Intercom team, “You know, I go on a coffee run for the team that costs a lot more than your product. That’s why we’re wary of investing too much more in you. We just don’t see how you’re going to survive.” If it helps as a reference point, the median ACV (annual contract value) for public SaaS companies is $27,000.
Do note that the more you charge, the longer the sales cycle will be. For ACVs over $20K, expect 4-6 months of a sales cycle. For contracts over $100K, expect 6-9 months. Of course, the contrapositive would be that the lower the price point, the easier and faster it takes to make a decision.
Reducing downgrades and churn
I’ve been in love with Clayton Christensen’s “jobs-to-be-done” (JTBD) framework ever since I learned of it a few years ago. At the end of the day, you’re delivering value. Value in the form of doing a job. As Christensen says, “when we buy a product, we essentially ‘hire’ it to help us do a job. If it does the job well, the next time we’re confronted with the same job, we tend to hire that product again. And if it does a crummy job, we ‘fire’ it and look for an alternative.”
The better it can do the job your customer needs to get done, the more you can optimize for the variables in the net retention equation. Sunita Mohanty, Product Lead at Facebook, shared an amazing JTBD framework they use back at Facebook and Instagram:
When I… (context) But… (barrier) Help me… (goal) So I… (outcome)
Here’s another way to look at it:
What features should we have that would make our product great?
What features should this product have that would make it a no-brainer purchase for our customers?
The “no-brainer” part especially matters. And to be a “no-brainer”, you have to deliver the best-in-class. Your features have to solve a fundamental job that your customer is trying to solve. The difference between a “great product” and a “no-brainer” is the difference between a 5 out of 5-star rating and a 6-star out of a 5-star rating. Effectively, the outcome in Facebook’s JTBD framework exceeds the goal, which makes the barrier irrelevant. As David Rubin, CMO of The New York Times and former Head of Global Brand at Pinterest once said: “Your service shouldn’t lead with ‘saving money’. You must create an offering that is so compelling, it stands by itself in the consumer’s mind.”
In closing
At the end of the day, in the words of Alex Rampell, building a startup is “a race where the startup is trying to get distribution before the incumbent gets innovation.”
You’re in a race against time. You’re trying to reach critical mass and growth before your incumbents realize your space is a money-making machine. And growth comes in two parts: acquisition and retention. While many founders seemed to have over-indexed on acquisition over the last couple of years, the pandemic has reawakened many that retention is often times much more difficult to attain than acquisition. While it may not be true for every type of business, hopefully, the above is another tool in your toolkit.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
As I am co-leading a VC fellowship with DECODE (and here’s another shameless plug), a few fellows asked me if I had a repository of questions to ask founders. Unfortunately, I didn’t. But it got me thinking.
There’s a certain element of “Gotcha!” when an investor asks a founder a question they don’t expect. A question out of left field that tests how well the founders know their product, team or market. In a way, that’s the sadist inside of me. But it’s not my job, nor the job of any investor, to force founders to stumble. It’s my job to help founders change the world for the better. By reducing friction and barriers to entry where I can, but still preparing them as best as I can for the challenges to come.
I’m going to spare you the usual questions you can find via a quick Google search, like:
What is your product? And who is your target audience?
How big is your market? What is your CAGR?
What is your traction so far?
How are you making money? What is your revenue model?
And many more where those come from.
Below are the nine questions I find the most insightful answers to. As well as my rationale behind each. Some are tried and true. Others reframe the perspective, but better help me reach a conclusion. I do want to note that the below questions are described in compartmentalized incidents, so your mileage may vary.
Here’s to forcing myself into obsolescence, but hopefully, empowering the founders reading this humble blog of mine to go further and faster.
The questions
I categorize each of the below questions into three categories:
The market (Why Now)
The product (Why This)
And, the team (Why You)
Together, they form my NTY thesis. The three letters ordered in such a way that it helps me recall my own thesis, in an unfortunate case of Alzheimer’s.
Why Now
What are your competitors doing right?
This is the lesser-known cousin of “What are your product’s differentiators?” and “Why and how do you offer a better solution than your competitors?”. Founders are usually prepared to answer both of the above questions. I love this question because it tests for market awareness. Too often are founders trapped in the narratives they create from their reality distortion fields. If you really understand your market, you’ll know where your weaknesses are, as well as where your competitors’ strengths are.
There have been a few times I’ve asked this question to founders, and they’d have an “A-ha!” moment when replying. “My competitors are killing it in X and Y-… Oh wait, Y is our value proposition. Maybe I should be prioritizing our company’s resources for Z.”
Why is now the perfect time for your product to enter the market?
As great as some ideas are, if the market isn’t ripe for disruption, there’s really no business to be made here… at least, not yet. What are the underlying political, technological, socio-economical trends that can catapult this idea into mass adoption?
For Uber, it was the smartphone and GPS. For WordPress and Squarespace, it was the dotcom boom. And, for Shopify, it was the gig economy. For many others, it could be user habits coming out of this pandemic that may have started during this black swan event, but will only proliferate in the future. As Winston Churchill once said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
A great way to show this is with numbers. Especially your own product’s adoption and retention metrics. Numbers don’t lie.
What did your customers do/use before your product?
What are the incumbent solutions? Have those solutions become habitual practices already? How much time did/do they spend on such problems? What are your incumbents’ NPS scores? In answering the above questions, you’re measuring indirectly how willing they are to pay for such a product. If at all. Is it a need or a nice-to-have? A 10x better solution on a hypothetical problem won’t motivate anyone to pay for it. A 10x on an existing solution means there’s money to be made.
Before we can paint the picture of a Hawaiian paradise, there must have been several formative volcanic eruptions. It’s rare for companies to create new habits where there weren’t any before, or at least a breadcrumb trail that might lead to “new” habits. As Mark Twain says, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
Why This
What does product-market fit look like to you?
Most founders I talk to are pre-product-market fit (PMF). The funny thing about PMF is that when you don’t have it, you know. People aren’t sticking around, and retention falls. Deals fall through. You feel you’re constantly trying to force the product into your users’ hands. It feels as if you’re the only person/team in the world who believes in your vision.
On the flip side, when you do have PMF, you also know it. Users are downloading your product left and right. People can’t stop using and talking about you. Reporters are calling in. Bigger players want to acquire you. The market pulls you. As Marc Andreessen, the namesake for a16z, wrote, “the market pulls product out of the startup.”
The problem is it’s often hard to define that cliff when pre- becomes post-PMF. While PMF is an art, it is also a science. Through this question, I try to figure out what metrics they are using to track their growth, and inevitably what could be the pull that draws customers in. What metric(s) are you optimizing for? I wouldn’t go for anything more than 2-3 metrics. If you’re focusing on everything, you’re focusing on nothing. And of these 1-3 metrics, what benchmark are you looking at that will illustrate PMF to you?
For example, Rahul Vohra of Superhuman defines PMF with a fresh take on the NPS score, which he borrows from Sean Ellis. In feedback forms, his team asks: “How would you feel if you could no longer use the product?” Users would have three choices: “very disappointed”, “somewhat disappointed”, and “not disappointed”. If 40% or more of the users said “very disappointed”, then you’ve got your PMF.
Founders don’t have to be 100% accurate in their forecasts. But you have to be able to explain why and how you are measuring these metrics. As well as how fluctuations in these metrics describe user habits. If founders are starting from first principles and measuring their value metric(s), they’ll have their priorities down for execution. Can you connect quantitative and qualitative data to tell a compelling narrative? How does your ability to recognize patterns rank against the best founders I’ve met?
If in 18 months, this product fails. What is the most likely reason why?
This isn’t exactly an original one. I don’t remember exactly where I stumbled across this question, but I remember it clicking right away. There are a million and one risks in starting a business. But as a founder, your greatest weakness is your distraction – a line in which the attribution goes to Tim Ferriss. Knowing how to prioritize your time and your resources is one of the greatest superpowers you can have. Not all risks are made equal.
As Alex Soktold me a while back, “You can’t win in the first quarter, but you can lose in the first quarter.” The inability to prioritize has been and will continue to be one of the key reasons a startup folds. Sometimes, I also walk down the second and third most likely reason as well, just to build some context and see if there are direct parallels as to what the potential investment will be used for.
On the flip side, one of my favorite follow-ups is: If in 18 months, this product wildly succeeds. What were its greatest contributing factors?
Similar to the former assessing the biggest threats to the business, the latter assesses the greatest strengths and opportunities of this business. Is there something here that I missed from just reading the pitch deck?
What has been some of the customer feedback? And when did you last iterate on them?
I’m zeroing in on two world-class traits:
Open-mindedness and a willingness to iterate based on your market’s feedback. As I mentioned earlier with Marc Andreessen’s line, “the market pulls product out of the startup.” Your product is rarely ever perfect from the get-go, but is an evolving beast that becomes more robust the better you can address your customer’s needs.
Product velocity. How fast are your iteration cycles? The shorter and faster the feedback loop the better. One of the greatest strengths to any startup is its speed. Your incumbents are juggernauts. They’ll need a massive push for them to even get the ball rolling. And almost all will be quite risk-averse. They won’t jump until they see where they can land. Use that to your advantage. Can you reach critical mass and product love before your incumbents double down with their seemingly endless supply of resources?
Why You
What do you know that everyone else doesn’t know, is underestimating, or is overlooking?
Are you a critical thinker? Do you have contrarian viewpoints that make sense? Here, I’m betting on the non-consensus – the non-obvious. While it’s usually too early to tell if it’s right or not, I love founders who break down how they arrived at that conclusion. But if it’s already commonly accepted wisdom, while they may be right, it may be too late to make a meaningful financial return from that insight.
But if you do have something contrarian, how did you learn that? I’m not looking for X years of experience, while that would be nice, but not necessary. What I’m looking for is how deep founders have gone into the idea maze and what goodies they’ve emerged with.
Why did you start this business?
Here, unsurprisingly, I’m looking for two traits:
Your motivation. I’m measuring not just for passion, but for obsession and the likelihood of long-term grit. In other words, if there is founder-market fit. Do you have a chip on your shoulder? What are you trying to prove? And to whom? Do you have any regrets that you’re looking to undo?
Most people underestimate how bad it’s going to get, while overestimating the upside. The latter is fine since you are manifesting the upside that the wider population does not see yet. But when the going gets tough, you need something to that’ll still give you a line of sight to the light at the end of the tunnel. Selfless motivations keep you going on your best days. Selfish motivations keep you going on your worst days.
Your ability to tell stories. Before I even attempt to be sold by your product or your market, I want to be sold on you. I want to be your biggest champion, but I need a reason to believe in the product of you. You are the product I’m investing in. You’re constantly going to be selling – to customers, to potential hires, and to investors. As the leader of a business, you’re going to be the first and most important salesperson of the business.
What do you and your co-founders fundamentally disagree on?
No matter how similar you and your co-founders are, you all aren’t the same person. While many of your priorities will align, not all will. My greatest fear is when founders say they’ve never disagreed (because they agree on everything). To me, that sounds like a fragile relationship. Or a ticking time bomb. You might not have disagreed yet, but having a mental calculus of how you’ll reach a conclusion is important for your sanity, as well as the that of your team members. Do you default on the pecking order? Does the largest stakeholder in the project get the final say after listening to everyone’s thoughts?
Co-founder and CEO of Twilio, Jeff Lawson, once said: “If your exec team isn’t arguing, you’re not prioritizing.”
I find First Round’s recent interview with Dennis Yu, Chime’s VP of Program Management, useful. While his advice centers around high-impact managers, it’s equally as prescient for founding teams. Provide an onboarding guide to your co-founders as to what kind of person are you, as well as what kind of manager/leader you are. What does your work style look like? What motivates you? As well as, what are your values and expectations for the company? What feedback are you working through right now?
In closing
Whether you’re a founder or investor, I hope these questions and their respective rationale serve as insightful for you as they did for me. Godspeed!
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
In the first decade of my life, my parents used to buy me different kinds of puzzles – from the Rubik’s cube to beautifully intricate LEGO sets to Luban locks. One of my favorites has always been these thousand-piece puzzles. Every time I poured those pieces out of the box, they scattered across our carpet like tiny ants scrambling to find meaning. I loved putting the puzzle together having only seen the completed image once – when I opened the box. That probably, at most, left a three-second impression in my mind. How awesome would photographic memory be. But alas, it wasn’t something I’d been blessed with. I only found out years later from friends that it wasn’t normal. That said, I imagine I took much longer than most people to piece together the whole puzzle.
Fresh out of the box, I start off knolling the various incongruous shapes. Like most others, I’m looking for similar designs, colors, lines, images – anything. Trying to make sense of disparate pieces. Frankly, I was drawing parallels wherever and whenever I found them. A more mature me would call it – pattern recognition.
As I progress, I spy colonies of color form in different areas on the living room floor. And therefore, try to see if any colonies, together, would tell a more robust, vibrant story. Sometimes I was right. Sometimes I was wrong.
As I near the end of the puzzle, I see everything come together. I’m not gonna lie. It’s extremely gratifying to see the rough picture in my head come to life. Often times, the final image has minor deviations from the loosely-defined vision I had when I started.
You probably caught on
You’re smart, and you probably guessed what I was trying to get at before you even finished reading my anecdote. And you’re right. In many ways, this puzzle journey is very similar to building a company. You start off with an idea, constructed upon anecdotal patterns you’ve seen in the world you know. And as you build the idea and talk to customers – other nearby pattern aggregations – you start to piece together a larger and more concrete goal. By the time you reach scale, you’re filling in the little details – the extra puzzle pieces – you missed when focusing on the more holistic vision. The little details of debugging, solving edge cases, and improving the user experience.
Listen to the silence
The initial idea comes from recognizing the patterns around you. Both what is being said, and what isn’t. Both what is there and what could be there.
One of my favorite stories on pattern recognition is about Abraham Wald, a Hungarian-Jewish mathematician and statistician, who’s credited with saving the lives of numerous pilots and airmen during WWII. Tasked with aircraft armor repair, Wald, then a faculty at Columbia University, was given a number of data points on bullet holes in the fighter planes that returned to base. Most were around the fuselage and a few around the motors.
As one would expect, the military anticipated to double down armor around areas with the most damage – the fuselage. But Wald took a different angle. Reinforce the plate metal around the motors, rather than the fuselage. Because the planes that didn’t make it back most likely had bullet holes where the planes that did make it back didn’t.
Listen to the sound
Sometimes you’re right. Sometimes you’re wrong. And if you’re wrong, follow the breadcrumbs of your market. Notice what their use cases are and how they’re spending their time. Even better if they’re developing hacks to circumvent the early inefficiencies of your product. What features or problems are getting a lot of attention?
For instance, Stewart Butterfield didn’t start off with the idea for Slack. After selling Flickr to Yahoo! and working at Yahoo! for three years after, he started with Tiny Speck, a gaming startup that raised $17M in venture funding to build Glitch. Unfortunately, it didn’t take off, outside of its cult following. But what did stick was the tool Stewart and his team had been using to chat in real-time with each other. Less than a year after it officially launched, it hit a $1B in valuation. Six years later, it became Salesforce’s biggest acquisitions at over $27B. And history is still being written.
Similarly, Kevin Systrom didn’t start off with Instagram. But rather Burbn – a location-based check-in app. Users would check-in, plan future meetups with friends, share pictures of their meetups, and earn points in the process. Unfortunately, the app was too complicated for the average user to use. After bringing on Mike Kreiger and analyzing how their users were using the app, they realized most of their traffic happened around posting and sharing photos. Scrapping everything else, they focused on their biggest use case – photo-sharing. And well, they were right on the pivot. In 2012, right before Facebook’s IPO, Facebook acquired Instagram for $1B. It was big then, but as we all know now, it’s even bigger now.
Back in 2012, Kevin once said, “It’s about going through false starts… Brbn was a false start. The best companies in the world have all had predecessors. YouTube was a dating site. You always have to evolve into something else.”
In closing
I love people who binge. It’s a sign that they capable of going all in and more on something they’re passionate about. I, myself, have binged time and time again on puzzles, shows, books, passion projects, and more. For Stewart, it was games. For Kevin, it was whiskey and bourbon. On the other hand, for Abraham, I can’t quite say. I have no idea if he was into plate armor or planes, but whether he liked it or not, he probably spent sleepless nights on it.
And in the process of binging, if you keep my mind and my senses open to inspiration, you may uncover some patterns in the mix. ‘Cause if you’re going to notice what’s being said and not said between the lines, you’re going to have to be in deep. Deep enough to take your breath away, but not deep enough to take your sight away.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The amazing Paul “PG” Graham came out with an essay this month on crazy new ideas. And the thing I’ve learned over the years, being in Silicon Valley, is if PG writes, you read. In it, one section in particular stood out:
“Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely dismissed. But not when they’re proposed by reasonable domain experts. If the person proposing the idea is reasonable, then they know how implausible it sounds. And yet they’re proposing it anyway. That suggests they know something you don’t. And if they have deep domain expertise, that’s probably the source of it.
“Such ideas are not merely unsafe to dismiss, but disproportionately likely to be interesting.”
I’ve written a number of essays about crazy ideas. Here. Also here. The last of which you’ll need to Ctrl F “crazy”, if you don’t want to read through all of it. And also, most recently, here. But that’s besides the point. The common theme between all of these is that crazy ideas are not hard to come by. Crazy good ideas are. Good implies that you’re right when everyone else thinks you’re crazy. When you’re in the minority. And the smaller of the minority you are in, the greater the margin on the upside. Potential upside, to be fair.
As investors, we hear crazy pitches every so often. David Cowan at Bessemer even wrote a satire on it all. For the crazy pitches, go to episode five. The question is: How do we differentiate the crazy ideas from the crazy good ideas? But as PG says, if it’s coming from someone we know is a subject-matter expert (SME) and they’re usually grounded on logic and reasoning, then we spend time listening. Asking questions. And listening. ‘Cause they most likely know something we don’t.
That was true for Brian Armstrong, who recently brought his company, Coinbase, public. He worked on fraud detection for Airbnb in its early days prior. And he knew he was getting into the deep end with crypto back in 2012. But he realized how unscalable crypto transactions were and how frustrated he was. Garry Tan, then at YC and part-time at Initialized, saw exactly that in him. A reasonable SME with a crazy idea. Garry just released an amazing interview between him and Brian too, if you want to tune into the full story.
What if some of the variables in the equation are missing?
But most of the time the founders you’re talking to aren’t subject-matter experts with deep domain expertise. Or at least, they haven’t left an online breadcrumb trail of whether they’re a thought leader or if they’re reasonable human beings. So subsequently, in the little time I have with founders in a first or second meeting, I look for proxies.
For proxies on domain expertise, I go back to first principles. What are the underlying assumptions you are making? Why are they true? How did you arrive at them? What are the growing trends (i.e. market, economic, social, tech, etc.) that have primed your startup to succeed in the market? Does timing work out?
To see if they’re “reasonable” under PG’s definition, I seek creative conflict. How do you disagree with people? If I brought in a contrarian opinion you don’t agree with, how do you enlighten me? How do you disagree with your co-founders?
In closing
To be fair, we’re not always right. In fact, we’re rarely right. On average, in a hypothetical portfolio of 10 startups, five to six go to zero. One to two break even. Another one to two make a 2-3x on investment. That is to say, they return to the investor $2-3 for every $1 invested. And hopefully, one, just one, kills it, and becomes that fund returner. Fund returner – what we call an investment that returns the whole fund and maybe more. Of course, every time a VC invests, they’re aiming for the fences every time. As a VC once told me, “it’s not about the batting average but the magnitude of the home runs you hit.” And even in those 10 investments, it’s a stretch to say that all of them are “crazy” ideas.
But the hope is that even if we’re wrong on the idea, we’re right on the people.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
I was introduced to a founder of an e-commerce marketplace recently trying to figure out what product-market fit looks like. Specifically what might be some early tells of PMF. And I told him, “If your users are sticking around long enough to try to game your system, you have something they want. While it might not be in the most efficient format, you’re close to PMF. Subsequently, solving that frictional point that users are trying to ‘hack’ will delight them.”
Last year, I wrote that one of the tells of a great unicorn idea is frustration with the status quo. And the lagging indicators of frustration are complaints, but even better, “hacks”. Life hacks. Career hacks. Cold email hacks. Any time a forum or community comes together to share best practices is a potential market opportunity. As Jeff Bezos once said, “Your margin is my opportunity.”
Similarly, if some of your users converge around circumventing your platform, they’re hacking their way to find a better solution. But the fact they’re sticking around on your platform means you have something they want. And while it could be more elegant, you’ve solved the rocks of the “rocks, sand, and water” framework. What’s left are the “sand” and the “water”. And they come disguised as a user hack.
Sarah Tavel of Benchmark once wrote: “You must create an offering that is so compelling, it stands by itself in the consumer’s mind.” Solving all the frictional points in the user journey will get you to that compelling offering – a lovable product.
A reader reached out to me last year and said, “Thank you… [But] you have no idea how long I spend reading your blogposts with a dictionary next to me.” While it wasn’t necessarily a hack, to know there was a reader out there willing to weather through my idiosyncratic vocabulary in my earlier essays meant a million to me. But at the same time, it was a sign I was too caught up in my own wordsmithing. So, I dialed it back. While there will still be some esoteric jargon from time to time, I try to make my writing more relatable when editing. And to that reader… if you’re still reading this essay, thank you.
Back in 2007, Marc Andreessenwrote: “The market pulls product out of the startup.” In this case, that pull becomes a race between you and your users’ frustration. Can you release an update that addresses your users’ pain point before they become so frustrated they pack up and go? Either to build their own version or try a competitor’s.
I love Max Nussenbaum of On Deck’s analogy here. “If the market is indeed pulling the product out of you, you sometimes feel less like a creator and more like a mere conduit.” You, as the team behind the product, are a conduit to satisfying your users’ needs. As Mike Maples Jr.says, “Getting storytelling right means the founder is the mentor of the story (ie Yoda), rather than the hero (ie Luke.).” Your customers are the heroes of the story. Of their story. And your story. How they spend their time should offer you brilliant product insights.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
I recently came across the above quote – the attribution to Einstein. And I found it extremely prescient. In the world last year. And in the years ahead.
Creativity is the ability to find inner peace in a busy world. To weave cacophony into symphony. The ability to recognize and chart patterns between the pixels and decibels around us. A guiding, focusing, and metaphorical – and I mean metaphorical in its truest form – principle that abstracts you from the literal shackles of your current situation. Now before I get to abstract…
I’ve written about where I find my inspiration on numerousoccasions, including while I’m:
Exercising
Driving
Cooking
Showering
Listening to podcasts
Washing the dishes
… just to name a few. In each of the above, I give myself the intellectual bandwidth and the time to ponder. Simply ponder. With no goal or predestination in mind. Frankly, this blog is a product of such intellectual adventures.
And I know I’m not alone. In the world coming out of the pandemic, this may cause a new revolution of creativity.
Our grassroots
Hundreds of thousands of years ago, we transitioned from a nomadic to a more specialized lifestyle. The transition to specialized roles in a hunter-gatherer society allowed hominids to share the responsibility of survival. As we learn in the basics of economics, economies that have comparative advantages who trade can create a larger global supply of goods and services. In this case, it was the cooperation among the citizens of the same society that freed individuals’ bandwidths to explore other interests, including, but not limited to:
Controlled use of fire
Adaptability to colder climates
Specialized hunting tools, like fishhooks, bow and arrows, harpoons and bone and ivory needles
Intricate knowledge of edible plants
While hand-built shelters likely go as far back as 400,000 years ago, and huts made of wood, rock and bone as far back as 50,000 years ago, it wasn’t until the Neolithic Revolution that agricultural culture became a permanent habitual change. In the emergence of an agricultural lifestyle, humans now freed up time they would have otherwise spent on migration or hunting. And with that same free time, they invented more creative means of living, not just survival, like the means to combat disease and increased agricultural knowledge. Economists Douglass North and Robert Paul Thomas call this Neolithic Revolution the “first economic revolution“. The two state this was the result of “a decline in the productivity of labour in hunting, a rise in the productivity of labour in agriculture, or [an] … expansion of the size of the labour-force”.
Maslow’s Hierarchy
If we look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the evolution of free time, and therefore creativity, makes complete sense. Psychologist Abraham Maslowwrote in 1943 that humans make decisions motivated five tiers of psychological needs.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
A person’s most basic, tangible needs are at the bottom, whereas the intangibles reside at the top. And according to Maslow, you cannot begin to fathom the higher echelons of your needs, like esteem and self-actualization, until you’ve fulfilled the tiers underneath. Maslow also calls self-actualization “growth needs” and the lower tiers “deficiency needs”. In a very real sense, when you’re struggling to find food and shelter or job security, you don’t have the mental capacity or free time to entertain how high your potential can go. Time, specifically leisure time, is a luxury for people who have fulfilled all their deficiency needs. And that leisure time is what creatives need.
Asking the best
Of course if I was to write anything on creativity, I had to ask my buddy, DJ Welch (IG, LI) – one of the most creative minds I know. Not only did he grow his YouTube channel to 370,000 subscribers in less than three years, he was also an artist for Lucasfilm, Instagram, Cartoon Network and more. Now, he’s working on a new project – Primoral Descent – one that I’ve been excited for the public to finally see.
“As a child, my parents let me have a lot of free time. They let me make my own choices. They let me be imaginative. That’s when you come up with innovation. Creativity is a river above everyone’s head.”
When I asked him to unpack that, he said, “Good ideas are gifts from the universe – fish that swim in that river. All you have to do is learn how to reach up and fish for them. And just like fishing, if you stick around long enough – if you’re patient enough, you’ll be able to catch a few. But you never know what fish you’ll reel in. Just that you will.”
Toys for adults
We see the same with entrepreneurs and creatives. They have time to think. Time to reach into that river and pull out an idea. They are investors and the medium of investment is their time. In fact, you can argue they’ve dedicated almost every waking hour to optimize themselves to offer a creative solution or perspective into the market. They’ve made it their job to be innovative. After all, innovation, by definition, is a creative solution. Under Einstein’s definition, we could call them professional time wasters.
As Chris Dixonsays, “The next big thing will start out looking like a toy.” Today, we see the rise of NFTs, VR/AR, content creation, e-sports, and much more. Not too long ago, we had the telephone, and eventually the smartphone, as well as the internet. All of which had their origins as toys. And I know I’m only scratching the surface here. In order to have time to create toys, or for that matter, even play with toys, you need leisure time.
With that same time, more and more people are pursuing their interests and passions, creating, what Li Jin at Atelier Ventures dubbed, the “passion economy“. Similarly, more people are dabbling into new hobbies. In the pandemic, the average person saved 28 minutes of time that would have been spent on going to work. An hour on average for the round trip. Some people used that time saved to get more work done. Others used their time saved to discover new passions – be it baking, starting a podcast, hiking, or gaming. For many Americans, that extra time was paired with stimulus checks and communities coming together to cause political and economic shifts – for better or worse.
As Tal Shachar, former Chief Digital Officer at Immortals, said, “The next big thing in 2021 is the YOLO economy. Consumers will be more open to trying new products/services and spending on novel experiences, particularly with friends, as we emerge from the pandemic with pent up demand and few routines.” In the process of trying, you will inevitably uncover more surface area to expand on.
In closing
In 2021 and onwards, as entrepreneurship and solo-preneurship lowers its barriers to entry, we’re lowering the Gini Index equivalent for creativity. More people will have increased access to time – time to self-actualize. Time to challenge our status quo.
I love this line in Kevin Kelly‘s “99 Additional Bits of Unsolicited Advice“: “The greatest rewards come from working on something that nobody has a name for. If you possibly can, work where there are no words for what you do.” If you can succinctly describe what you’re working on, then you’re not really pushing the envelope.
Later in that same essay, Kelly writes, “A multitude of bad ideas is necessary for one good idea.” And to have ideas, you need time. As DJ and I were wrapping up our conversation, I asked, “So, DJ, how do you optimize for creative moments?”
And he responded with some great food for thought. “I nap. Sleeping is how I process information. As I go lay down for a nap, right in that lucid moment, I come up with my ideas. I quickly scribble them down, then go back to sleep. When I finally wake up, I go work on them. The great Winston Churchill’s naps were a non-negotiable part of his day. In fact, during WWII, he had a bed set up in the War Rooms so he could take his daily afternoon naps. Similarly, I often take 20-minute power naps around 2-3PM. And I’ve never pulled all-nighters. Thinking isn’t hard for me. Thinking is the part ‘efficient people’ [who work straight through the day] get stuck on.”
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
Years ago, when I first started in venture at SkyDeck, I met a founder who made me sign an NDA before he pitched. At the time, I had no idea that it wasn’t the norm. So, I ended up signing it without a second thought. It wasn’t my first time I signed one, and certainly not the last. He spent 20 minutes pitching his idea to me. I don’t remember the exact details of the pitch, but I remember it being an intriguing pre-launch idea outside of my realm of expertise.
In our last five minutes, out of curiosity, I asked him why he had me sign an NDA – something I’d never been asked to do since I jumped into VC.
He said, “I can’t afford to have you take my idea.”
Nevertheless, I had a couple names in mind that might be useful to him. At least more useful to him than I could be. But given the NDA, I needed written consent for every person I wanted to send his startup to. As well as consent for what I could and could not tell them. After two weeks of back and forth emails, he only allowed me to pass his idea to one other person. Even so, in a very limited scope. With very little context. Far from enough for my investor friend to say yes to a meeting. All in all, regrettably, the long slog of asynchronous communication heavily drained my willingness to help. And at the end of the two weeks, I was happy to get that load off my chest.
It was a lesson for myself. Ever since then, I err on the side of not making people sign NDAs. Why?
Most people don’t care enough about your problem space to pursue the idea you’re going for. If they were, they’d have pursued the idea/solution already.
Sharing your idea helps you more than it helps them. You get free advice and feedback, all of which are ammunition to further your idea. The more you share, the faster you learn, the faster you can iterate and grow your startup.
If you make a potential partner sign an NDA, it implicitly shows a lack of trust in the partnership, and there could lead to future friction between you 2, which would detract you from focusing on actually building the business. I’ve seen it happen. And I’ve seen businesses crumble because of a lack of trust. And it could start from the smallest thing and exacerbate into a full-blown drama.
On the off chance, they do take your idea and run with it to the market, they become a competitor to your business. And if you’re scared of competition, you’re probably in the wrong industry. Or if you want to run a lifestyle business (one at your own pace) – like a side hustle or one you find great joy in doing, it really doesn’t matter what other people are doing.
The success of a business is determined by how well you can execute. The first mover advantage is about who can get to product-market fit first, not who birthed the idea first. Before Google, AltaVista, Aliweb, and Yahoo! existed, just to name a few. Equally so, Myspace and Friendster started before Facebook.
A week after my intro, my investor friend hit me up again to tell me he turned down that founder before the founder even pitched. He told me, “It’s unnecessary red tape and not worth my time. And I’m not short on deal flow.”
Almost a year after that, in an effort to keep a complete record of the deals I’ve sent to investors, I revisited that startup. A quick LinkedIn search told me they’d closed up shop. I never checked back in with them to ask why. It could have been trouble in their go-to-market motions. It could have been co-founder disputes. Or it could have been their inability to find investment. I don’t know. But I imagine that their inability to find investors contributed to their closure.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
While I don’t always ask this question, when I do, it provides me enormous context to how the founding team works together. What do you and your co-founders fundamentally disagree on? Over the years, I’ve heard many different answers to this question. “We disagreed on which client to bring into our alpha.” “On our last hire.” “Our pricing strategy.” And so on. As long as you contextualize the point of friction, and elaborate on how, why, and what you do to resolve it, then you’re good. There’s no right answer, but there is a wrong answer.
The answer that scares me the most is: “We agree on everything.” Or some variation of that. While people may share a lot of similarities, even potentially the same Myers Briggs personality type (although I do believe people are more nuanced than four letters), no two people are ever completely the same. Take twins, for example. Genetically, they couldn’t be any more similar. Yet, to any of us, who’ve met any pair of twins in our lifetime know they are vastly different people.
Priorities lead to disagreements
One of my favorite counterintuitive lessons from the co-founder and CEO of Twilio, Jeff Lawson, is: “If your exec team isn’t arguing, you’re not prioritizing.” He further elaborates:
“As an executive team, we never actually argued — which is a strange thing to bother a CEO. But in fact, something always felt not quite right to me when we always agreed. Clearly, we must not be making good enough decisions if we all agree all the time.
“What I came to realize was that the reason why we didn’t argue is we weren’t prioritizing. One person says, ‘I like idea A,’ and the other person says, ‘I like idea B,’ and you say, ‘Great, put them both down, we’ll do it all!’ And in fact, when you look back on those documents at the end of the year, we rarely got around to very much of anything in those documents.
“Be vigorous not just about what makes the list, but the specific order in which priorities fall. “We realized it’s not just about all the things we could do, but the order of importance — which is first, which is second. Now you get disagreements and a lot of vigorous, healthy debate.”
Starting the tough conversation
Admittedly, it’s not always easy to have these tough conversations with the people you trust most. In fact, often times, it’s even harder to have these conversations because you’re scared about what it can do to your relationship. Arguably, a fragile one at best. At the end of last year, Yin Wu, founder of Pulley, shared an incredible mindset shift when building an all-star team, which led to my conversation with her.
3/ We are not a family. We are a world class team, purpose built to win. Most founder-types do not want a 2nd family, they want to excel.
We push each other to improve. We own our mistakes so we can avoid making same mistake twice. We celebrate our joint success as a team.
You’re a team driven to change the world we live in. And to do so, you need a system of priorities.
One of the best ways I’ve learned to address conflicts – explicit and implicit, the latter more detrimental than the former – is taking the most obvious, but the one that most people try to avoid. Address the elephant in the room at the beginning.
I love the way Elizabeth Gilbertapproaches that elephant, “The truth has legs. It’s the only thing that will be left standing in the end. So at the end of the day, when all the drama has blown up, and all the trauma has expressed itself, and everyone has acted up and acted out, and there’s been whatever else is happening, when all of that settles, there’s only going to be one thing left standing in the room always, and that’s going to be the truth. […] Since that’s where we’re going to end up, why don’t we just start with it? Why don’t we just start with it?”
When it hasn’t happened yet
If you haven’t disagreed with your team yet, you either haven’t established your priorities or one or the other or both has yet to bring it up. A mentor of mine once told me, “Whatever you least want to do or talk about should be your top priority.” And the goal is to sit down with your team and figure it out. To come into the conversation suspending immediate judgment and trying to see where your other team members are coming from.
As the CEO of a startup or a leader of a team, you don’t have to use every piece of feedback or input you get from your teammates. But you should make sure your teammates feel heard. That you’ve put thought and intention behind considering their ideas and opinions. Whether you choose to deviate from your teammates’ opinions or not, you should clearly convey the rubric that you used to make that decision. And why and how it aligns with the company’s mission.
In closing
And of course, the follow-up to the first question about disagreement would be: How often do these disagreements happen? And how do you move forward after the disagreement comes to light?
I go back to a line Naval Ravikant, co-founder of AngelList, once said, “If you can’t see yourself working with someone for life, don’t work with them for a day.” Indubitably, you’re going to be working with your co-founders for a long time. And if you haven’t dissented with your co-founders – or for that matter, other team members, investors, and customers – yet, you will. And knowing what, how and why you disagree with others can be invaluable for your company’s survival and growth.
This past weekend I heard a new phrasing of disagreement I really liked from a friend of mine. “Creative conflict.” I’m adding that phrase to my dictionary from now on. And well, this is my preface to you all before I do.
Prioritize. Communicate. And embrace creative conflict.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
I recently tuned back into Elizabeth Gilbert‘s, author of Eat Pray Love, 2016 interview with On Being. It also happens to be one of my favorite interviews about creativity and curiosity. I found myself pausing, rewinding, playing, pausing, rewinding, then playing again one line again and again.
“Everything that is interesting is 90 percent boring.”
She further elaborates, “And I think one of the reasons that both my sister and I ended up being authors is because we were taught how to do boring things for a long time. And I think that’s really important, because here is one of the grand misconceptions about creativity, and when people dream of quitting their boring job so that they can have a creative life, one of the risks of great disappointment is the realization that, ‘Oh, this is also a boring job a lot of the time.’ It’s certainly tedious. It’s a boring job I would rather do than any other boring job. It’s the most interesting boring job I’ve ever had. […]
“And we are in a culture that’s addicted to the good part, the exciting part, the fun part, the reward. But every single thing that I think is fascinating is mostly boring.”
She takes it from a perspective that everything has its boring parts. So you have to learn to accept what’s boring along with what’s interesting. I think she’s absolutely right. But while I was tuning in again to that same interview – those exact same lines – for who knows, the 20th time, I thought… maybe there’s something more. Forgive my brain for having the tendency to jump into numbers and equations. That for some reason, one of the primary ways I understand life has to be through some quantitative lens. I thought, what if we take it from an expected value perspective.
Expected value = 10% * (Utility of interesting) + 90% * (Utility of boring)
The utility we gain from boring, often times, is of course, well… boring. Some utility value less than zero. Or in other words, more often than not, we lose utility. On the other hand, the utility we gain from interesting is positive. So, then it becomes a balancing act between what’s interesting and what’s boring. That in the decision to pursue something interesting, there might be the below subconscious calculus:
10% * (Utility of interesting) > 90% * (Utility of boring)
To shine a different light, is the interesting part interesting enough that it outweighs all of the boring parts combined, and ideally, more?
Take, for instance, writing for me. I love writing. It’s meditative. Thought-provoking. And it’s challenging. But at the same time, editing, filling in the keywords for SEO, finding a cover image, all the way to writing when I don’t feel inspired, but I do so to commit to a weekly routine is tedious.
Similarly, Gilbert uses the example of raising children. “Raising children — I’m not a mother, but I’m a stepmother, I’m a grandmother, I’m a godmother, I’m an aunt, and I know that 90 percent of — especially, being with very small children…
“Incredibly — it’s hard. And then there’s the moment where you realize, ‘Oh, my God, this is a spark of creation that I’m working with, and this is magic, and this is life seen through new eyes.’ And creativity is the same, where 90 percent of the work is quite tedious. And if you can stick through those parts — not rush through the experiences of life that have the most possibility of transforming you, but to stay with it until the moment of transformation comes and then through that, to the other side — then, very interesting things will start to happen within very boring frameworks.”
For many of this blog’s readers, it’s starting a business. Whether you’re changing the world or the people you care the most about, that mission is what drives you. That’s what makes it interesting. And every time you hit a milestone –
Your first user outside of your friends and family,
Rated #1 on Product Hunt,
One of your customers writes a handwritten love letter to you and your team about how you saved her family,
You finally have enough revenue to pay your team members who’ve been working with you for free for two years,
$1M in ARR,
50,000 users,
You reach profitability,
Your dream investor says yes,
A Fortune 500 business offers you 9 figures for your business,
And the list goes on and on.
… it’s exciting! But let’s be honest, not every day will be sunshine and rainbows. 90% of your days will be tedious. Some percent of those days or weeks might even suck! 90% of your days will be you working to find and reach that 10%. And if that 10% is just that amazing, it’ll make that 90% worth it.
In a sense, it’s like the Pareto Principle. 80% of your utility will come from 20% of your achievements. That star 20% – your customer love letters, providing employment for all your team members during the tough days of COVID.
In an analogous mental model, in everything that is boring, there might be a small percentage that makes it interesting. Now I’m really curious as to what I might discover here.
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
